Too good to check: Gingrich and Santorum considered teaming up to defeat Romney

posted at 12:41 pm on March 22, 2013 by Allahpundit

Sounds like a dream ticket: Gingrich, with his famously poor favorable ratings, and Santorum, a punching bag for Team O’s Akin-fueled “war on women” attacks on social conservatism. Joshua Green, who broke this news for Business Week, previews the media take on the ticket from an alternate dimension in which they beat Romney:

And so, once again, we’re forced to revisit one of the most dispiriting realities of Campaign 2012. Namely, Romney probably was the best we could have done.

Why didn’t Gingrich/Santorum fusion happen? Egos, of course.

The discussions between the two camps commenced in early February, just after Gingrich got trounced in Florida. Brabender called members of the Gingrich brain trust, hoping they could persuade Gingrich to drop out and endorse Santorum, who was rising in the polls. “I’ll tell you this,” says Brabender, “If Gingrich had dropped out at the right time, Santorum would have been the nominee.” Brabender wasn’t short on moxie: He wanted Gingrich to declare in the middle of a nationally televised debate that he was dropping out and endorsing Santorum. “I couldn’t write an ad to match the political theater that would have created,” he says.

Gingrich had other ideas. He proposed that both men join forces but remain in the race, each concentrating on the states where he matched up best against Romney. Gingrich thought he could carry Georgia, Delaware, Washington, and Wisconsin (from which his wife, Callista, hails). Santorum would focus on other states in the South and the upper Midwest. But there was a catch. “The appeal of a Unity Ticket was strength in numbers,” says Kellyanne Conway, Gingrich’s pollster. “The big question was, who was going to unify with whom? Who was going to be the sheriff and who was going to be the deputy?”

Gingrich thought that he belonged on top of the ticket. “Our reasoning,” says Walker, “is that we had won a major primary at that point [South Carolina] and people like Rick Perry were coming on board. Perry had just endorsed Newt.”

To Santorum’s team, however, the Gingrich campaign was a sinking ship, and their own man was the obvious choice to lead the ticket. “At the end of the day,” says Brabender, “we won 11 states and tied two others. He won two states, which makes it only logical that Rick was the one who had earned the right to go one-on-one with Romney.”

Read it all for tales of Newt, in vintage form, making “an elaborate historical argument” to Santorum that the senior figure should lead the ticket when the party is split. It sounds goofy in hindsight to think of him demanding the top spot when he faded so quickly and sharply after getting crushed in Florida, but Dave Weigel’s right that you need to pay attention to the timeline. Newt pulled off his big victory in South Carolina on January 21; he was routed in Florida on January 31, and then discussions with Santorum started happening a few days later. It wasn’t crazy at that point to think that Gingrich, who’d recently won a major state primary, should lead the ticket with Santorum in support. But then, the fact that Newt was eager to make a deal with a guy who had yet to see any clear-cut victories (Iowa was still in dispute) was surely proof enough to Santorum’s camp that Gingrich knew he couldn’t win. He was, in fact, a “sinking ship” after Florida and he knew it, and so did Santorum’s team. And don’t forget that the story of the primary campaign to that point had been that every challenger, including Herman Cain, spent a little time leading the polls. The powerful “Anybody but Romney” current among conservatives had led them to give everyone else a look; Santorum’s camp likely figured that their turn was coming now that Gingrich had gone bust, which ended up being true, so why should Santorum settle for number two? He was the last man standing.

At least there’s now a precedent for when Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal pull this on Rubio in 2016. Exit question: Reread the excerpt above and tell me, how exactly was Newt’s strategy of both of them staying in the race supposed to work? In theory, I guess, Santorum would tell his voters to support Newt in “Newt’s states” and Newt would tell his voters to support Santorum in “Santorum’s states.” But why would a voter do that if he didn’t know who was at the top of the ticket yet? And if Newt and Santorum had settled on a ticket with one of them at the top, what would be the point of both of them staying in the race? Just have the would-be VP nominee drop out and endorse the other guy.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Apparently the best the Republican Party could offer was Romney or a combination of Gingrich and Santorum.

Again, the Republican Party essentially offered to the American voter Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

Out of around 300 million Americans the GOP gave us a choice between Romney or Gingrich-Santorum.

JR on March 22, 2013 at 2:46 PM

“The GOP” didn’t do that. There was no candidate who wanted to run but wasn’t allowed to participate. If there were people who you feel would have been better candidates but who declined to throw their hat in the ring then that’s on them and them alone.

“The GOP” didn’t do that. There was no candidate who wanted to run but wasn’t allowed to participate. If there were people who you feel would have been better candidates but who declined to throw their hat in the ring then that’s on them and them alone.

alchemist19 on March 22, 2013 at 3:12 PM

That’s a load of crap. It takes a LOT of money to even run in a primary (which is why Pawlenty dropped).

There are many, many ways to maneuver donors such that certain candidates can be “persuaded” not to run since the money is already committed to someone else.

On the money front: that’s EXACTLY what sank Gingrich. He got absolutely bombed by Romney’s funding advantage in Florida. He was unable to respond to Romney’s dastardly attacks using LIBERAL TALKING POINTS against him.

I remember now how angry that made me. And it makes me even angrier given Romney’s kid gloves treatment of Obama.

The same poll had Romney up by seven. He won Georgia by eight. Gingrich would have carried Georgia by at least four, probably five, points. And this poll was from February before Gingrich ever had a chance to make a nationwide pitch to the electorate as a whole.

He also could articulate that vision. And the American people need to hear a conservative message clearly articulated.

And as for the moon base. That is exactly what we need. He was mocked for that by Santorum and quite a few others. Nobody laughed at Kennedy, though, when he said we’d put a man on the moon.

When I was growing up there was always good news about our country occurring. yeah, there was war and murders, but there were also things to cheer about. The interstate highway system was being built. The Twin Towers in New York were being built. There was always a major new skyscraper somewhere that was bigger and more beautiful than ever. NASA was always doing something new. The moon launch. Then we drove a car on the moon. Then the shuttle came next. There always seemed to be something major and new going on that made you feel good about your country. Even then, it was common to hear how we had the best healthcare in the world. Life expectancy was always going up.Then every year, something you never hear anymore, but this was common.. how farmers had produced so much food there was a glut. The orange crop was larger than previous years or the corn crop was larger then previous year so corn would be especially cheap this year. And on and on.. but those days are over.

Today.. the only thing people look forward to is the next iphone. There are no big dams being built. No major new highways being constructed. No big major breakthroughs in anything. The news is all just bad. Nothing to cheer about and nothing to celebrate.

The same poll had Romney up by seven. He won Georgia by eight. Gingrich would have carried Georgia by at least four, probably five, points. And this poll was from February before Gingrich ever had a chance to make a nationwide pitch to the electorate as a whole.

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM

The race didn’t move because Georgia wasn’t seriously contested because the race wasn’t as close there. With Newt on the ticket and states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Colorado already tucked safely in the Obama column it presented them an opportunity to contest Georgia. Not saying Newt wouldn’t have still pulled it out, just that it’s not laughable to suggest he could have lost it.

Romney served as a giant muzzle on GOP candidates down the ticket. No one could effectively campaign on Obamacare, one of the Democrats’ greatest weaknesses, because of Romney.

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 3:17 PM

.
ummm, no – in retrospect.

Since SCOTUS gave the thumbs up to Hopeycare when they did- June/July – Pre-Convention – ANY R candidate who built their campaign on HopeyCare repeal (and rightly so) would have probably lost it right there. There would be No recovering from the Roberts Court smack down. And the Dims would easily paint that R candidate as a Loser at that point- going against SCOTUS.

I know we shouldn’t be surprised. I mean, we’ve just about seen it ALL by now. But still, sometimes I find myself flabbergasted at the abject stupidity of people who think they’re qualified to lead this nation. Neither Gingrich nor Santorum had a rat’s sinking chance of becoming president. And yet both of them continued on, past the point of common sense, to create the maximum amount of division and strife possible within the ranks of the party.

Mitt Romney is probably the most DECENT man who’s run for the office in modern times, knowledgeable, hard-working. The way he was treated, not just by Democrats, but by Republicans, conservatives and libertarians… was scandalous. We will be spending another four years with so-called “liberals” pulling this nation apart at the very seams because of people like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson… people who for some inexplicable reason thought they’d be an acceptable choice for an incredibly diverse nation, people who put their own ambitions ahead of their country.

Say what you will… we’d be having a different day today if Barack Obama had been defeated last November. And as much as some people hate to admit it, Mitt Romney was the only guy who could’ve accomplished it.

The reason why Republicans in California keep losing elections is NOT a result of poor quality GOP candidates, it’s because California’s electorate is stupid. I think that played a bigger part in 2012 than people realize.

I can understand someone saying we could have done better with a different candidate than Romney, but what’s bat sh!t crazy is when TruCons blame the entire election purely on Romney and make the case that someone like Newt with his serious ethical baggage or Santorum with his over the top SoCon nuttiness on issues like birth control would have prevailed.

Romney was a MUCH better GOP candidate than the last 3-4 we have nominated (I know that’s not saying much, but it’s still true) The problem is, we’re a nation in decline, and we’re getting the leaders we deserve.

Since SCOTUS gave the thumbs up to Hopeycare when they did- June/July – Pre-Convention – ANY R candidate who built their campaign on HopeyCare repeal (and rightly so) would have probably lost it right there. There would be No recovering from the Roberts Court smack down. And the Dims would easily paint that R candidate as a Loser at that point- going against SCOTUS.

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 3:42 PM

So you’re one of those “Obamacare is the settled law of the land” folks and think the GOP should drop the issue altogether. SCOTUS has spoken. The people hate it, but SCOTUS has spoken. Right?

I don’t think that’s true. They just get upset when the squishes in our party try to absolve Romney of any blame whatsoever.

Romney was a MUCH better GOP candidate than the last 3-4 we have nominated (I know that’s not saying much, but it’s still true) The problem is, we’re a nation in decline, and we’re getting the leaders we deserve.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Do the squishes of our party realize that constantly whining about “TruCons” AND the “stupid electorate” is a surefire way to alienate everyone but the squishes of our party (who half the time don’t even vote for our party’s candidates anyway)?

A real conservative who is articulate will win. So no RINO Jeb Bush or Krispy KReme for 2016!

LevinFan

That sounds more like a “conservative voter” problem than a Romney problem to me. Is anyone really going to make the case that McCain was a much better conservative than Romney? At least Romney fought for it.

And what conservatives decided this was an election they should sit out?

I’m against both Jeb and Christie, but I can guarantee you whomever the GOP nominee is in 2016, there’s going to be a faction that says they’re insufficiently conservative and will threaten to sit out the election, then if said candidate loses, blame the loss on the candidate for conservatives not turning out to vote.

If someone decided not to vote in 2012 because they thought Romney was not conservative enough, I’d honestly like them to find a new political party because we can’t waste resources trying to woo childish idiots.

The GOP” didn’t do that. There was no candidate who wanted to run but wasn’t allowed to participate. If there were people who you feel would have been better candidates but who declined to throw their hat in the ring then that’s on them and them alone.

alchemist19 on March 22, 2013 at 3:12 PM

The establishment spent months begging Mitch Daniels to run. He declined due to personal reasons.

I’m against both Jeb and Christie, but I can guarantee you whomever the GOP nominee is in 2016, there’s going to be a faction that says they’re insufficiently conservative and will threaten to sit out the election, then if said candidate loses, blame the loss on the candidate for conservatives not turning out to vote.

Rather than putting it in terms of who is conservative enough, my opposition to both Jeb Bush and Chris Christie has to do with political terms. I think that there is no way that Jeb Bush can win because of his last name, and it is a vanity project on his part. I do think that he can get the nomination by cranking up the family resources and scaring candidates like Rubio, Jindal, etc. out of the race. I cannot rightly vote for someone who screwed up a perfectly winnable election for the GOP due to his ego. Chris Christie is dead to me because of the lovey dovey little stunt he pulled with Obama to purposely tank Romney’s campaign.

I also won’t vote for either of the two main participants in this story. I made this very clear during the 2012 election. I find Santorum a morally odious scold and Gingrich an unlikeable hypocrite.

That sounds more like a “conservative voter” problem than a Romney problem to me. Is anyone really going to make the case that McCain was a much better conservative than Romney? At least Romney fought for it.

And what conservatives decided this was an election they should sit out?

I’m against both Jeb and Christie, but I can guarantee you whomever the GOP nominee is in 2016, there’s going to be a faction that says they’re insufficiently conservative and will threaten to sit out the election, then if said candidate loses, blame the loss on the candidate for conservatives not turning out to vote.

If someone decided not to vote in 2012 because they thought Romney was not conservative enough, I’d honestly like them to find a new political party because we can’t waste resources trying to woo childish idiots.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Look no one argued/tried more than me to convince everyone to vote Romney in the general. As much as I didn’t like the guy I knew he was not a Marxist.

That being said the reason more conservatives stayed home this time around is that got sick of the GOPe and their moderate wimp candidates. They may have voted McCain but after the attacks on Sarah and putting yet another moderate up again this time they had enough.

Is it really too much to ask for a candidate who doesn’t have prior support of socialist health care, believes in global warming, supports ethanol subsidies, etc..?

It’s ok for liberals to put up the most liberal candidates they can get but we have to abandon our core principals and get wishy washy moderates?

I see all the wannbe Paul supporters have shown up to dump on Santorum…don’t kid yourselves, a small government candidate whose committment to conservative social issues, i.e. life, traditonal marriage, is suspect ain’t gonna win the nomination let alone a general election. Santorum may have had his flaws but he would have flayed Obama on health care and Libya unlike Romney…and for the knucklhead who suggested Santorum would have lost NC in the election, try again, I live here and Romney’s vote was actually kept down by continuing Evangelical skepticism about his Mormonism…

And so, once again, we’re forced to revisit one of the most dispiriting realities of Campaign 2012. Namely, Romney probably was the best we could have done.

No, he wasn’t. Never was. Never had a freaking prayer in what was by all accounts a winnable election.

The most dispiriting reality of the 2012 election is that the GOP snookered themselves into believing that a moderate, wimpy, unsuccessful former one-term governor, who biggest legislative achievement paved the way for his opponent’s biggest legislative achievement, was in any way “the best we could have done.”

Is it really too much to ask for a candidate who doesn’t have prior support of socialist health care, believes in global warming, supports ethanol subsidies, etc..?

This sounds like Newt Gingrich to a tee, but for some reason he got a pass from TruCons, I guess because he yelled more.

Romney said on day one he would repeal ObamaCare or issue waivers to everyone, and he would have. He also said he would support Ryan’s plan to make medicare a voucher system, which would have saved trillions.

No, Romney wasn’t perfect, but if some conservatives are willing to let the nation go to hell because Mr. Perfect doesn’t run, I think we have a coalition problem more than a candidate problem.

No, he wasn’t. Never was. Never had a freaking prayer in what was by all accounts a winnable election.

The most dispiriting reality of the 2012 election is that the GOP snookered themselves into believing that a moderate, wimpy, unsuccessful former one-term governor, who biggest legislative achievement paved the way for his opponent’s biggest legislative achievement, was in any way “the best we could have done.”

It’s this denial of responsibility that is the most galling.

Myron Falwell

Please tell us, who could we have nominated in that field and beaten Obama with? I’d love to know.

This sounds like Newt Gingrich to a tee, but for some reason he got a pass from TruCons, I guess because he yelled more.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM

The difference is that Gingrich has actually owned up to his past heresies and apologized for them. Romney never once expressed remorse over RomneyCare or acknowledged his role in helping to bring about ObamaCare.

When Romney was accused of depriving a dying cancer patient of health insurance his campaign’s response was to say “she would have been covered had she lived in Massachusetts.”

3.) Santorum, given his blue collar bona fides and his relatively more populist stance, would have played better in the midwest, and would have made Pennsylvania more of a contest. He never would have uttered that 47% idiocy.

4.) Santorum would have been able to pick a fight with Obama on Obamacare (unlike Romney who created it in MA), would not have had the grassroots blowback that Romney did, and would have fought back against the War on Women meme by drawing direct attention to Obama’s position on BAIPA, rather than playing on the enemy’s turf by claiming to have binders of women.

I don’t see Gingrich or Santorum as an upgrade to Obama. I find Santorum’s brand of moral hectoring Catholicism personally odious.

Illinidiva on March 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

.
As a fan of neither… they are most certainly “an upgrade” to the Marxist-Raised Transformer of American Life. Now granted – ahole Reid stops the whole show in the Senate anyway for an R President…. But any Republican is better than than POS Occupier of the WH who shads on America daily.

If someone decided not to vote in 2012 because they thought Romney was not conservative enough, I’d honestly like them to find a new political party because we can’t waste resources trying to woo childish idiots.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 4:18 PM

This would be funny if you hadn’t resorted to calling names. It’s akin to saying: you can’t quit, you’re fired! I held my nose, donated to and voted for Romney but… I couldn’t “find” another viable party. If that changes between now and 2016, that might be my last R vote.

This would be funny if you hadn’t resorted to calling names. It’s akin to saying: you can’t quit, you’re fired! I held my nose, donated to and voted for Romney but… I couldn’t “find” another viable party. If that changes between now and 2016, that might be my last R vote.

Fallon

Yes, I’m calling names for people who label themselves “conservatives” but sat out the election.

Congratulations, you’re not one of them. Yet.

My point is, these people not voting is not Romney’s fault, it’s their own.

This sounds like Newt Gingrich to a tee, but for some reason he got a pass from TruCons, I guess because he yelled more.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Gingrich got assaulted by negative ad after negative ad from Romney’s SuperPAC alliance. These were the same people that, when Obama and his SuperPACs assaulted Romney for his ties to Bain Capital, did nothing but say, “Obama is a nice guy… he’s just in over his head.”

And you wonder why rank-and-file conservatives, who you disparage as “TrueCons,” hate your guts so much.

This would be funny if you hadn’t resorted to calling names. It’s akin to saying: you can’t quit, you’re fired! I held my nose, donated to and voted for Romney but… I couldn’t “find” another viable party. If that changes between now and 2016, that might be my last R vote.

Fallon

Yes, I’m calling names for people who label themselves “conservatives” but sat out the election.

Congratulations, you’re not one of them. Yet.

My point is, these people not voting is not Romney’s fault, it’s their own.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 5:56 PM

It’s YOUR fault for propping up a sure-fire loser who couldn’t win a winnable election. And then you still go around and rip apart those who sacrificed THEIR principles to drag this LOSER as far as they could. Such as myself.

If you and your losers in the GOP establishment continue to act this obstinate and hateful towards conservatives who want to win, then we have just cause in abandoning the GOP. You may be Chris Brown, but I am NOT Rihanna.

The difference is that Gingrich has actually owned up to his past heresies and apologized for them. Romney never once expressed remorse over RomneyCare or acknowledged his role in helping to bring about ObamaCare.

When Romney was accused of depriving a dying cancer patient of health insurance his campaign’s response was to say “she would have been covered had she lived in Massachusetts.”

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Careful. The conservative-hating Mitt-Bots can never accept reality even if you threw it in their faces. It’s just like arguing with a brick wall. Or a Socialist.

Well, why did YOUR side work to crucify Rick Perry so hard after those debates? Because he was the lone legitimate threat against Romney?

He could not have done any worse than Mitt’s sorry MIA performance in debates 2 and 3 vs. Obama.

Myron Falwell

Perry was given the nomination on a silver platter wrapped in a bow but he blew it repeatedly. Nobody took him out, he self-destructed.

I also love how TruCons gave Perry a pass on things like being against a border fence (how the hell do you oppose a border fence?), giving tuition breaks to illegal aliens for college, forcing Gardasil on young girls, being Al gore’s campaign chairman in Texas, and finally, supporting HillaryCare.

Look, I would have easily supported Perry if he won the nomination, but his conversion to conservatism sounds more like political opportunism to a state that was dumping Democrats in the 90′s. He was also REALLY bad at retail politics.

I also love how TruCons gave Perry a pass on things like being against a border fence (how the hell do you oppose a border fence?), giving tuition breaks to illegal aliens for college, forcing Gardasil on young girls, being Al gore’s campaign chairman in Texas, and finally, supporting HillaryCare.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

I did not give Perry a pass on any of those things. Not a single one. (I assume I meet your definition of “TruCon”.)

Any thoughts on a candidate that would keep you from abandoning the GOP for ?

For 2012 that is.
Was there anyone else who wanted the job ?

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Rand Paul (warts and all) or Ted Cruz are the only ones I will consider. No one else.

I’m already planning on sitting out in Ohio’s governor race next year when Kasich loses badly to Ed Fitzgerald. Unless Kasich gets primaried first. His support of Obamacare is the deal breaker, but he’s been yet another failed GOP governor. Rob Portman will also suffer the same fate unless he gets tossed out in the primaries.

I’m already on the last straw with the GOP, a party that now has shown that they do not want to win in any way.

Perry was given the nomination on a silver platter wrapped in a bow but he blew it repeatedly. Nobody took him out, he self-destructed.

He was railroaded by the Romney campaign. They eagerly took the narrative poised by the MSM about Perry and amplified it even more. Any other campaign and Perry would have won. Oh, and the excessive amount of worthless primary debates moderated by hostile MSM agents didn’t help, either.

I also love how TruCons gave Perry a pass on things like being against a border fence (how the hell do you oppose a border fence?), giving tuition breaks to illegal aliens for college, forcing Gardasil on young girls, being Al gore’s campaign chairman in Texas, and finally, supporting HillaryCare.

And you give Mitt passes on Romneycare and his inability to articulate any position properly.

Look, I would have easily supported Perry if he won the nomination, but his conversion to conservatism sounds more like political opportunism to a state that was dumping Democrats in the 90′s. He was also REALLY bad at retail politics.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Romney did the same damn thing. Only difference is, Romney is a crappy retail politician. And people saw through that veneer. Conservatives didn’t buy it. At least Perry is believable in comparison.

This sounds like Newt Gingrich to a tee, but for some reason he got a pass from TruCons, I guess because he yelled more.

Romney said on day one he would repeal ObamaCare or issue waivers to everyone, and he would have. He also said he would support Ryan’s plan to make medicare a voucher system, which would have saved trillions.

No, Romney wasn’t perfect, but if some conservatives are willing to let the nation go to hell because Mr. Perfect doesn’t run, I think we have a coalition problem more than a candidate problem.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM

That’s exactly my point. 2 of the front runners in Mitt and Newt had issues with socialized health care. Even Santorum did with voting for Medicare Part D!

So in response to the moderates whining that no candidate is good enough for us conservatives my response is can’t we get someone who has a good record on these core issues??

At least he was honest about his feelings on immigration. Everyone knows Romney supports amnesty but was using immigration to appear more conservative.

He was also an enthusiastic supporter of Romneycare, but he saw the err of his ways and now all is forgiven? Some conservatives are really cheap dates.

He apologized. He actively campaigned against ObamaCare. Romney never apologized (and he didn’t just support RomneyCare – he created it). Romney was MIA during 2009-2010 as conservatives fought their hearts out trying to stop ObamaCare.

Newt was a joke candidate that was on a book tour with his mistress wife living it up from donations off of gullible conservatives.

.
Romney DID NOT choose the camp name for Perry’s family hunting lodge.

And Romney DID NOT tell Perry to remember only 2 of 3 Fed Agencies that he would cut. In fact Mitt helped him in that very awkward debate instance by giving him the answer….. “EPA”

Even in a debate- Mitt was the decent man in the room.

Once you have given up on morality and decency, than you are a lost soul.

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 6:23 PM

And yet, Team Romney didn’t possess this same level of anger and disdain for Obama as they did with conservatives like Perry. They were selective in their attacks, and you can’t deny that and get away with it.

Proving my point for the 1,987th time that Mitt never really wanted to win. So quit.

3.) Santorum, given his blue collar bona fides and his relatively more populist stance, would have played better in the midwest, and would have made Pennsylvania more of a contest. He never would have uttered that 47% idiocy.

4.) Santorum would have been able to pick a fight with Obama on Obamacare (unlike Romney who created it in MA), would not have had the grassroots blowback that Romney did, and would have fought back against the War on Women meme by drawing direct attention to Obama’s position on BAIPA, rather than playing on the enemy’s turf by claiming to have binders of women.

Stoic Patriot on March 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Spot on my friend.

Let me strengthen your point. To all those that say Santorum’s stance on social issues would turn many off:

I”m not religious at all and I actually support gay marriage. Yet after Bachmann dropped out Santorum was my candidate. THe reason is he had the best conservative record both economically and on national security. Again I’m clearly no social con but I usually support them such as Santorum and Bachmann because they are the strongest on core issues. I liked that Santorum said he supported income equality.

He had the balls to fight. Too bad that ROmney only fought and fought dirty in the GOP primary and then bent over and took it from Maobama.

I think the argument about the flaws of the last GOP field shows how much better we would’ve been had Sarah run.

She has the balls to fight and the best conservative record out of any of em.

She never supported socialized health care, believed in global warming, or supported any kind of bailouts.

Too bad she was deemed too “polarizing” by the GOPe like Tokyo ROve.

LevinFan

What does that say about her though that she was scared out of the race (supposedly) by the likes of Karl Rove? Or that she quit in the middle of her first term? If you’re not willing to stand up to the Republican Establishment, what makes you think they can take on the Left?

Sorry, I always hear what a fighter Palin is, but she doesn’t seem to ever want to actually climb in the ring. She just wants to be a political celebrity.

What does that say about her though that she was scared out of the race (supposedly) by the likes of Karl Rove? Or that she quit in the middle of her first term? If you’re not willing to stand up to the Republican Establishment, what makes you think they can take on the Left?

Sorry, I always hear what a fighter Palin is, but she doesn’t seem to ever want to actually climb in the ring. She just wants to be a political celebrity.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I agree with Myron Falwell. You’re a RINO clown.

She never fought? Watch the Undefeated and educate yourself for once.

She put her political career ON THE LINE fighting the AK GOP elites as the oil and gas commissioner when she called out corruption.

I wish she had ran but it would’ve been tough to fight maobma, the media, and the GOPe, and RINO’s like yourself who wouldn’t have given her a chance.

As for being a political celebrity, she helped alot of conservatives get elected. You know, people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Deb Fisher, Rubio, etc.

Their conservatives are “champion fighters” except they can’t defeat the likes of Mitt Romney or Karl Rove or the mysterious Establishment.

And it’s always somebody else’s fault when they lose, but they SO would have won otherwise.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Yep. When the one they get all starry-eyed for makes a personal choice not to do something it can’t be that their hero/savior let them down so they have to find another boogeyman, preferably one that fits their existing narrative.

What does that say about her though that she was scared out of the race (supposedly) by the likes of Karl Rove? Or that she quit in the middle of her first term? If you’re not willing to stand up to the Republican Establishment, what makes you think they can take on the Left?

Sorry, I always hear what a fighter Palin is, but she doesn’t seem to ever want to actually climb in the ring. She just wants to be a political celebrity.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Wow, your ignorance runs deep. Palin took on the corrupt GOP in Alaska, including the Governor and Attorney General, and the oil companies. Some people even went to jail. You need to do a little research before you say something as stupid as you just did.

I think she was genuinely undecided until the last minute. Maybe her family didn’t want her to or she had some serious death threats… who knows.

I still admire her and always will.

Would you support her if she ran in 2016? Why or why not?

LevinFan on March 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM

In the primaries? Probably not. Of course it will depend on who runs but I’d take Rand, Rubio or Jindal over Palin. I think they’re fresher and they don’t carry some of the baggage Palin does like quitting partway through her one term in office, plus Palin personally rubs me wrong; I really didn’t like “Going Rogue” at all and it still leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth but that’s a long story. Now if she ran and won the primary she’d have my unquestioned support in the general.

Palin cut and run, she couldn’t even finish a single term out as Governor because of the “pressure”. She had more important things to do, like a book tour and reality TV show (oh and the Dancing with the Stars appearance)

And she would have mopped the floor with Obama and saved this country, but Fox News scared her off.

Indeed. And anybody crying that Santorum was “more conservative” than Romney is mistaken. He’s a big government entitlement-expanding Bush-era Republican who was kicked out because his only conservative credentials were on abortion and gay marriage.

Caiwyn on March 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Whatever point you were trying to make about Santorum not being all that conservative ended in a train wreck when you compared him to Romney.

Exactly. The idea that Santorum, or Gingrich, or Paul Ryan for that matter, were any less liberal, or more conservative than Romney was a cruel joke

The joke is when people start defending Romney’s conservative cred. Whatever reason you have for rejecting Santorum or Gingrich or both, at least be honest enough to admit that Romney either pretended to be a liberal in Massachusetts or pretended to be a conservative afterwards. Romney was exactly the kind of weak-tea say-anything-to-get-elected squishy Republican that keeps handing the White House back to the Democrats, no matter how badly they screw up.

Large numbers of the people who voted for him would have loved to vote against him. They just thought Obama was worse, so they held their nose and hoped for the best.

Palin cut and run, she couldn’t even finish a single term out as Governor because of the “pressure”. She had more important things to do, like a book tour and reality TV show (oh and the Dancing with the Stars appearance)

So? Considering your side has an irrational hatred of her and keeps drilling that point over and over (to the Socialist’s delight, mind you) who could blame her for trying to get additional media exposure in any way possible?

And she would have mopped the floor with Obama and saved this country, but Fox News scared her off.

What a fighter!

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Like how Romney let Obama off the hook with Bengazi in the 2nd and 3rd debates?

don’t see Gingrich or Santorum as an upgrade to Obama. I find Santorum’s brand of moral hectoring Catholicism personally odious.
Illinidiva on March 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Your name says it all…Illinois is a basketcase, I know, that’s where I grew up and I saw the future and that’s why I left…the worst of it is the Democrats are who they are…no big surprise, but the Republicans are not better, just out of power at the momentl. The state is slowly sinking below the surface and when the bills come due it will right behind New York and California in insolvency. Get our while you still can.

In the primaries? Probably not. Of course it will depend on who runs but I’d take Rand, Rubio or Jindal over Palin. I think they’re fresher and they don’t carry some of the baggage Palin does like quitting partway through her one term in office, plus Palin personally rubs me wrong; I really didn’t like “Going Rogue” at all and it still leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth but that’s a long story. Now if she ran and won the primary she’d have my unquestioned support in the general.

alchemist19 on March 22, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Doesn’t Rand Paul’s “containment” foreign policy worry you? I like some of the things he’s done but I’m worried he may be too much like his kook dad.

What has Rubio done again? Other than push for amnesty? He seems like he could be influenced by the GOPe.

Jindal is a good conservative, not exactly an engaging speaker though.

And it’s not fair to get on Palin for “quitting”. Let’s be serious and talk about how she would’ve went personally bankrupt fighting the bogus ethics charges and the state would’ve wasted everytimes time with all the associated paperwork.

Mitt Romney is probably the most DECENT man who’s run for the office in modern times, knowledgeable, hard-working. The way he was treated, not just by Democrats, but by Republicans, conservatives and libertarians… was scandalous.

Murf76 on March 22, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Really? He may have been a “decent” man overall, but he sure was a socialist who backtracked on abortion in Massachusetts, then suddenly found convictions afterwards.

But was he somehow more “decent” than Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43? Neither Bush was a great president, especially the first, but they were both very decent and family-oriented people.

And what was “scandalous” about the way he was treated? If anything, he gave better than he got.

So you would sit back and let a Marxist get elected rather than vote for Santorum or Newt?

Very impressive, how do you look yourself in the mirror?????

LevinFan on March 22, 2013 at 4:37 PM

I don’t see Gingrich or Santorum as an upgrade to Obama. I find Santorum’s brand of moral hectoring Catholicism personally odious.

Illinidiva on March 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

I’m no Catholic, but Santorum didn’t say anything that wasn’t fairly standard Catholic dogma. His position on contraceptives was obviously from Catholic doctrine. A minor wart, as long as he wasn’t trying to use his office to push it.

What he did argue was that SCOTUS was wrong to treat contraceptives as a federal issue, and that state and local governments had the right to make their own regulations. Constitutionally, he was dead right.

But apparently, a lot of people who claim to want local autonomy really want the federal government to decide everything for us.

I wasn’t aware that Palin’s fans cared that much about what “The Establishment” thought.

alchemist19 on March 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM

I know the term “Palin-Bot” was used derisively during flaming arguments on HotGas threads last year. So let me try a different angle on it. (It’s first name isn’t Sharon, though… ;)

I deeply respect her, and she has very solid moral backings. Plus she can articulate conservatism and draw an audience, something most pols which they could do. Her family has gone through an internal hell the likes of which have never been seen before, and quite frankly, is not only discouraging, but despicable.

But I knew she couldn’t logically run. Why? She didn’t become a party loyalist like previous VP nominees have, and the Establishment despise her for it. Even though she had a way better track record with candidates (excluding Angle and O’Donnell, but including McCant, which likely was out of loyalty to him than the party) proven better than Rove’s SuperPAC operation last year.

I’m not sure that she will ever be able to run for POTUS. But it’s not for a lack of trying. But that two candidates she backed in 2010 (Rand and Rubio) with the possibility of a third (Cruz) could face each other in the 2016 primaries is more a testament to her than any candidacy she could ever have mounted last year.

How do I know this? After the interview ended, the morning show’s producer commented on-air that ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN were requesting the transcript (Fox already had it because WTAM is a Fox Radio affiliate) because it was the first time since the day of the attack he publicly made a statement on the attack.

The only time Mitt publicly mentioned Bengazi was on an Election Day interview on WTAM 1100 in my hometown of Cleveland.

How do I know this? After the interview ended, the morning show’s producer commented on-air that ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN were requesting the transcript (Fox already had it because WTAM is a Fox Radio affiliate) because it was the first time since the day of the attack he publicly made a statement on the attack.

Myron Falwel

You’re just straight up lying now. Romney brought up Benghazi the day after the incident, he did a press conference about how disgraceful it was that Obama apologized.

Now one could take issue, with Santorum, basically recycling Huckabee’s staff, Stewart and Brabender, the late legitimating ‘Julianne’s Bender’, but those are minor points, compared to the issues that Santorum brought forth.